Last week we posted a video about Quakers and the Kingdom of God. But is the word “Kingdom” antiquated, or even offensive? Callid Keefe-Perry explores the baggage behind the phrase, and explains why he still uses it.
Resources:
- Subscribe to QuakerSpeak so you never miss a video
- Read Friends Journal to see how other Friends describe the substance of Quaker spirituality
- Learn more about the life and ministry of New England Quakers at NEYM.org
- Find out how Quakers are assisting military personnel stationed in 11 states
- Learn about the rich diversity of Quakers worldwide with FWCC.
- Work for peace with justice with AFSC.
Discussion Questions:
- Do you find the language “Kingdom of God” to be meaningful for you?
- Do you find it to be problematic? Why or why not?
Transcript:
I want to claim “Kingdom of God” to say that there is something at the top of this world for me that is not just the world. There is a call to being a spiritual being in the world, and something, some force, some power, some great love is in charge.
Why I Still Use the Word “Kingdom” Despite the Baggage
So when I think about the Kingdom of God, one of the first things that pops up is the voices of many Friends who are saying, “Kingdom? Yeesh. Not so much into the patriarchy there, bro. Can we back a little bit off of the Kingdom and call it the commonwealth of God, or maybe the Kin-dom of God (drop the ‘g’)?” And I don’t do that. I say the Kingdom of God, and I say that because I think that by virtue of our baptism in the Spirit by which we become convinced to be Quakers or Christians of any stripe, when we say yes to God we are saying no to Caesar, and therefore we do have a King, it is a hierarchy, and God is at the top.
Colonial Baggage
Now: is that God an old white dude in the sky? No. Is that God necessarily male-ness incarnate? No. Is “King” a masculine word? Yes. Am I thrilled with that? No. But you know what, that’s what I’ve got in English. Does it come with a whole lot of colonial, junky baggage? Yes. Yes it does.
But to give up on the lordship of the Kingdom of God means that I’m not sure there’s anyone in charge up there, and that’s fine if it’s not any one, but there’s nothing? No one? Then what is this power that we have? What is this power that we have in a covered Meeting? What is a gathered Meeting if something isn’t mediating us?
Pledging Allegiance to the Kingdom
It is to that thing that I claim allegiance. It is to that power that’s above all powers, that holy power that I name as God, that I name as king—Christ the King—that I say I’m pledging my allegiance towards. And so it is to the Kingdom of that God, the Kingdom of heaven and the Kingdom of God that I endeavor to work, so that the Kingdom on Earth may be realized as it is in heaven, that the lion can lay down with the lamb and we can have relationships that are less full of strife and less ordered on shark capitalism and the consumptive models of what makes a good person a good person—what makes someone proud and healthy and successful—and instead, we order our lives on loving and compassion with one another, the way that I think God would have us do.
The views expressed in this video are of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Friends Journal or its collaborators.
Thank you, Callid. Your eloquence speaks my mind. Blessings!
AMEN!
If we had an adequate word to denote the Power of God, as human beings, we would be the ones in power: namers are in control of what they name. Seeing we are not and that the Power of God must be beyond words, we’ll have to accept that we’ll never find the right word for what we know empowers this world and that whatever we end up using will fall short. It goes with the territory; the important thing is to retain the awareness that the word we use doesn’t cover the bases and to keep an inexpressible sense in our hearts and minds of what we really mean . ‘ Kingdom’ will fit the bill as well as any and considering the undertones and overtones it brings from Scripture probably best, in my view, for what that is worth.
With all that’s going on in the world this month, this is the least important question I could think of. . .
How about “why does God allow Republicans to prevent background checks?” “Why does God make
the NRA so powerful?” Why are people starving in Iraq and Syria while Friends worry about the
term, “kingdom?” Who really cares about this. . . ?
Lately when I hear masculine language for God, I feel it like a kick in the gut. It really is almost physically painful—the sense that God does not include me, or my 50% of the species, in Godself. If God does not embrace me (except as an afterthought), then why should I seek God’s leading when I do try to create change in the world? If I am not inherently part of God, then why should I seek God when trying to bring about, say, wise background checks on guns? I think the language matters.
I wonder if there are alternatives that invoke God’s power without suggesting that God is exclusively male: the Realm of God, the Governance, the Sovereignty. We could also speak of Rulership, Leadership, Guidance—those just off the top of my head. Even the World of God would still leave God’s rule in place—“of” implies that it all belongs to God. We can change language. It exists to serve us, not the other way around.
Ooh—now that I think about it further, I wonder if the Ministry of God wouldn’t work well? Ministry: connotes both the governance of “prime minister” but also the service of “to minister to”—which seems more Godly altogether.
Kingdom doesn’t sit well with me. Neither would Queendom or Empire. But I accept the value of not letting others’ words get in the way. I’m comfy with using others’ words if it helps to hear where the words are coming from. So I accept it in Biblical settings.
I live in the Reality of God; perhaps in the Realm of God? I can use Power and Presence of God too.
I can get with the hierarchical meaning inherent in “kingdom”: I do believe we are about an alternative order of things, different allegiances than those of worldly powers. But I’m with those who object to the maleness of this term. We already equate power and God with maleness and that terms reinforces those equations–and the ways they make female power feel “unnatural” to people (witness the visceral reactions to Hillary Clinton that underlie some of the criticsms. Not that she is above croticism, just that not all of it is about what people claim it is about. This is part of why tge metaphors we use for God matter: they reveal what we will and will not acknowledge as power or greatness.) I’ve heard “Reign of God” suggested as a gender- neutral alternative, and I think that works. Although “ministry” has great potential, too, as it suggests not just a state but activity. Thanks for your thoughts on the subject.
Thank you. I agree that some of the substitute language used fails to convey some of the important meaning of Kingdom of God. The one substitute I think which does not seriously degrade the meaning would be Reign of God. It seems to me that takes out the maleness without degrading the concept.
Words are inadequate to express “That Which Is”.
I’m okay with Friends who say “Kingdom of G-d” since that expresses the measure of Light given, but there is a stop in my mind whenever I hear those words.
Now, when I hear that phrase, I just go deep into “That Which Is” to know that the “Manifestation of All”, is not a description of the hierarchy of how humans govern.
Kingdom is OK. I like ministry better
Our choices of words are always imperfect human choices in an imperfect human world. I hope we may continue to be open to continuing revelation about making the best, most loving, most compassionate choices of which we are humanly capable, choices that are inclusive rather than exclusive. I hope we may avoid digging in our heels and refusing to change just because “we’ve always done things this way.” Personally I feel more loving, more compassionate, and more peaceful when I say “Dominion of God.” And every time I hear someone say my choice of language has made them feel more included, less excluded, I know it has been well worth the effort to change the old habit, no matter how comfortable it was at one time. Personally knowing the pain it has caused others, the old habit is no longer comfortable to me now.